HM Solomon I

Except the rules specifically allow the one-word meaning of that emoticon. I don't see how specifically prohibiting the emoticon makes sense in that context. I can understand banning other emoticons, but not that one tbh.

What is the rationale behind specifically banning 'o/' but allowing 'Hail' when those are identical in meaning?

P&W is a great alternative to CN, better war mechanics, better econ mechanics, and an admin team that actually gives a damn. I play both, but I mostly play CN still because of the community in my alliance and I've been playing long enough it sort of has its own inertia.

I agree, the mods are erring on the side of even a shred of suspicion = multi. And warning those who discuss moderation issues when all they're doing is asking legitimate questions about how rules are enforced, and maybe making the not unreasonable claim that they are being enforced too harshly and not fairly, is just plain dumb. And there's also this. Seriously warning someone for having a lowercase character rather than an uppercase one is Kafkaesque, we're talking actual insanity here.

Certainly it is true that smaller alliances are unlikely to have the resources to send permanent representatives to every non-allied alliance but there are reasons other than signing treaties (as listed above) to send representatives to some of them.

Actually there are many reasons to send permanent representatives to non-allies: Non-allies might be connected to allies, thus keeping lines of communication open is essential. Non-allies can be potential future allies, which won't happen without regular communication. Even non-allies can appreciate having one point of contact with another alliance, someone they know will be around and can be used to reach others within their alliance. Non-allies are nonetheless major powers in the world and having an ambassador to them allows you to monitor them. Likewise, it eliminates the need to get someone up to speed on their eccentricities when an urgent matter arises. et cetera

10/10 would lol again.

Viceroys are not advisors.

I never said it was a zero-sum game, and I never said in order to get ahead you must screw another alliance. I said it is disingenuous to play yourself as an advisor while being both a representative and member of another alliance. You can certainly influence alliances, but influencing does not entail advising.

Well for one a good ambassador does not serve as an advisor to the receiving alliance, for how can one serve as an advisor while being loyal to another? I agree that micro-management is not likely to be an optimal path for FA, ambassadors must have some leeway. That said, I have no idea how you thought I or anybody else would have gotten than from "Quite a bit of implicit authority if you are good at being an ambassador B)".

wut

Recently, I've been thinking about the subject of this article. What implicit authority do ambassadors and representatives of alliances have when speaking to foreign alliances? This may seem at first trivial, but it's actually quite important. It matters when it comes to alliances' responsibility for what their representatives say. Here we will delve into this question and attempt to work out an answer. All authority is either explicit or implicit. Explicit authority is that which is granted directly by someone with the legitimate ability to do so. But explicit authority is easily revoked and in any event, it isn't the kind of authority that usually gets anyone into trouble because it is so clearly defined by its very nature. There isn't much room for error. Implicit authority on the other hand is much murkier. It isn't based on the decrees of another (organization or individual) but rather on the context of both the position a person holds and other factors such as a given situation. While it can vary depending on situation, what will be discussed here is the minimum level of implicit authority representatives can be assumed to have because without it their jobs would effectively be impossible or at least unreasonably difficult. So what is this minimum amount of implicit authority representatives are vested with? Well it is reasonable to figure all representatives are plenipotentiaries. A plenipotentiary is an individual who has the authority to speak on behalf of the sovereign (i.e., the State or, in the case of CN, the Alliance). Of course, this is not entirely true. For example, we rarely think of alliance members who serve as representatives as implicitly holding the power to negotiate or sign treaties, declare war, make peace, or do any of the more high level actions alliances are capable of performing. That said, while representatives may not ordinarily have the authority to do these things, they can certainly speak (but not act) on behalf of their alliances. Their alliance has sent them to represent it to another, and if the receiving alliance cannot take what this person says as representative of the alliance, why would it even bother to talk with said person in any official capacity. The sending alliance then may as well have not sent this person at all because without the authority to speak on behalf of their alliance, which is the whole point of sending representatives, the person cannot do her job. So onto why this matters. Because representatives are speaking for their alliances, their alliances can be held responsible for anything that they say to a foreign alliance. Of course, an alliance can revoke its representatives' authority to speak for it, but it is responsible for anything said before that point. Responsibility is a measure of how much praise or blame a person deserves for words or actions, and if alliances are not responsible for what their representatives say, then what their representatives say is trivial and pointless. They may be nominally speaking on behalf of their alliance but it isn't substantive speech. If representatives cannot engage in substantive speech, they cannot do their jobs as substantive speech is the only kind that matters to the receiving alliance. Niceties and basic polite conversation are fine, but in order to engage with an alliance through its representatives (which is the whole point of receiving and talking to representatives), representatives must be capable of saying things that genuinely mean something, and how can anything they say mean anything for relations between alliances if one alliance is wholly removed from anything that is said? The answer is that it can't. Representatives must be capable of speaking on behalf of their alliances to do their job, and speaking on an alliance's behalf necessarily entails that the alliance can be held responsible for what is said in its name, for good or for bad, for praise or for blame.

Thanks.

Again, that's not the point of this entry. lol